Julia Gillard's henchman Stephen Conroy attacks freedom of the press

[nero_bolt]

Socialism bordering on communism Gillard and Labor style.  ( This will please the luvies and the socialists on here I am sure)

THIS government will go down in history as the first Australian government outside of wartime to attack freedom of speech by seeking to introduce a regime which effectively institutes government sanctioned journalism.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/an-aggressive-attempt-to-silence-your-media/story-e6frezz0-1226595884130

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is threatening to take away privacy law exemptions - often described as shield provisions - which are fundamental to the operation of journalism in our democracy. He clearly said today that these protections for journalism would be removed if the proposed Public Interest Media Advocate was unhappy with the oversight of a media company's reporting by the Australian Press Council.

This removes the capacity of journalists to do their job - it is a not too sophisticated endeavour to gag the media.

The government also risks standing as the one that turned the clock back to last century, with its highly interventionist, vague and unnecessary public interest test on media ownership - which is nothing more than a political interest test which governments will use to punish outlets they don't like.

It will only serve to add layers of uncertainty, huge cost and inefficiency, adding yet another cost on business and Australian taxpayers.

The stated rationale of the public interest test is that it is to preserve media diversity. Yet there is more media diversity today than in all of human history. Moreover, both the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Communications and Media Authority already have extensive powers to enforce media diversity today.

The minister has made no case as to the inadequacy of these existing powers. This proposal cannot be about diversity - that false need in the face of plenty is a sad disguise for the government's desire to control the media. The irony that the reference to a desire to preserve diversity is contained in a statement which advocates the abolition of the 75 per cent television broadcast reach rule is not lost on journalists.

The Public Interest "Tsar" will be beholden to government and will act as its gatekeeper. It is a sad day for Australian democracy.

It also represents a profound debasing of public policy process to sit on two reports for a year and then to put a gun to the head of parliament and business demanding passage of a series of bills in less than a week - all without any consultation with the print and digital media industry. Bills which have a huge impact on major employers, thousands of employees, investors and taxpayers in the Australian economy are being proposed in an old fashioned "stick 'em up" style hardly reflecting reasonable behaviour in a dynamic modern digital economy.

The whole approach today constitutes a travesty of public policy and parliamentary process.

Good read here

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/julia-gillards-henchman-stephen-conroy-attacks-freedom-of-the-press/story-e6freuy9-1226595971160

[donnashuggy]

I thought Hockey had a tantrum too!

[topsidesoul]

BTW- is Pyne is dandy or does he just have a wierd way of speaking?

[*ibis]

Wasn't it because Tony Abbott referred to the Prime Minister as "she" is that what set it off?

OMG the nerve of that misogynistic referring to the  Prime Minister as "she" 

hope she wasn't to traumatized

[donnashuggy]

So many of them seem to have speech impediments, on both sides. Pynes is just particularly annoying - school prefect type annoying (crawler at school maybe) 😄

[topsidesoul]

My god, British PM David Cameron has become one of Gillard's henchmen and decided to appoint a Press council to regulate it.

One wonders if this news will be picked up by the Australian Media who have linked Gillard to Burma and the Soloman Islands? when it comes to dictatorships?

Our freedom is doomed!!!!!!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/uk-press-to-scrutinise-watchdog-deal/story-fn9eci8...

BRITAIN'S newspapers have vowed to scrutinise a deal struck by politicians on a tough new press regulator, which they warn threatens 318 years of press freedom.

MPs insisted the agreement would rein in misdeeds exposed by the News of the World phone-hacking scandal without curbing press freedom, but newspapers said the government had "crossed the Rubicon".

Prime Minister David Cameron said the new regulator would have the power to issue harsh sanctions on misbehaving newspapers, including fines of up to 1 million pounds ($1.5 million, ).

"We need a system of tough, independent self-regulation that will deliver for victims," he told parliament.

Mr Cameron warned that regulation of Britain's famously unruly press must "actually deliver" for victims of media intrusion, rather than being simply "an exercise in grandstanding".

Start of sidebar.

Skip to end of sidebar.

Recommended CoverageUK MPs reach deal on press regulation

End of sidebar.

Return to start of sidebar.

The new body will be able to force newspapers to issue upfront apologies for inaccurate or intrusive stories, Mr Cameron said, as well as offering a free arbitration system for victims.

Newspapers that refuse to sign up for the voluntary system could face extremely high "exemplary" damages in court cases.

A statement issued by the Daily Mail Group, Telegraph Media Group and News International - publishers of The Sun and Times newspapers - said they needed "time to study" before formulating a response to the "deeply contentious issues" contained within the plan.

Political leaders said the deal, finally struck after months of negotiations, addressed the abuses laid bare in last year's Leveson Inquiry into media ethics, without bringing an end to more than three centuries of press freedom in Britain.

However, the Daily Telegraph accused MPs of "crossing the Rubicon".

"Last night, parliament decided that 318 years was long enough to let newspapers and magazines remain beyond its influence," said its editorial.

Mr Cameron set up the inquiry in the wake of revelations that Rupert Murdoch's News of the World tabloid illegally accessed the voicemail messages of a murdered schoolgirl as well as dozens of public figures.

Over eight months of hearings, Judge Brian Leveson heard testimony from dozens of victims of press intrusion, including actor Hugh Grant and Harry Potter author J K Rowling, as well as politicians, journalists and newspaper executives.

Justice Leveson concluded in his final report that British newspapers had "wreaked havoc with the lives of innocent people" and recommended a complete overhaul of their system of self-regulation, backed by a new law.

The governing coalition had been split over how to implement Leveson's recommendations, with Conservative leader Cameron rejecting plans for a new press law advocated by his Liberal Democrat coalition partners and the opposition Labour Party.

The compromise reached early Monday will see a new press watchdog created under a royal charter, a special document used to establish organisations such as the Bank of England and the BBC.

The charter will be protected by a separate law which, while making no mention of the press, will state that all charters passed after March 1, 2013 can only be modified by a two-thirds parliamentary majority.

Both sides claimed victory on Monday, with Mr Cameron saying he had saved newspapers from potential censorship, and Labour leader Ed Miliband saying the new system would be protected in statute from meddling politicians.

Mr Cameron insisted the new charter did not amount to a law regulating the press.

"It's wrong to create a vehicle whereby politicians could more easily in the future impose obligations on the press," he told lawmakers.

Mr Miliband said newspapers had "nothing to fear", after the owners of the Daily Mail, The Sun and The Daily Telegraph earlier warned they may boycott the new regulator if it was written into law.

Hacked Off, the campaign group representing victims of media intrusion, said the proposals were "second best" to a full press law but would help prevent a repeat of the scandal.

The new system "will protect the freedom of the press and at the same time, protect the public from the kind of abuses that made the Leveson Inquiry necessary", said Brian Cathcart, one of the group's founders.

But free speech campaigners Index on Censorship warned that the deal spelled a "sad day for press freedom in the UK".

[donnashuggy]

OMG the nerve of that misogynistic referring to the  Prime Minister as "she" 

hope she wasn't to traumatized

I could be wrong as I was busy at the time but to me it came across as rude and disrespectful.

[newstart2380]

did anyone see pyne before he was ejected today ? mad as a cut snake he is .. he was foaming , rabid. he's an unstable personality.

Now, how come u can make a derogatory statement like this about someone and I get a slap for me giving u the - - - stirrers spade , me thinks u might b one of the mod squad LL and u r more thaN welcome to report this to as I don' t give a proverbial. You have taken the pleasure out of making any comment on here and expecting an intelligent debate and acceptance of another persons point of view.  

[lakeland27]

we all get slaps. NS paranoid much ? did you see it ?

[newstart2380]

we all get slaps. NS paranoid much ? did you see it ?

good bye LL, good bye Julia, no i am not paranoid but I do believe in fairness for all which is obviously not found on any threads related to politics so I will stick to other more pleasant topics where u don't seem to have so much interest. Finally, can't wait for your comments after the labor party is obliterated in September.

[the_great_she_elephant]

Back on topic - has anyone posted here a factual breakdown on what EXACTLY is being proposed in the bill.

As I see it the general public is faced with a HUGE problem in debating this issue as- apart from one very brief commentary on Media Watch last night - the ONLY information we are able to receive is coming from those who have a vested interest in opposing the legislation.